In the recent judgment of Gray and others v G-T-P Group Limited, the High Court considered whether a charge fell within the scope of the Financial Collateral (No.2) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) and would not therefore be void against a liquidator, despite not being registered with the Registrar of Companies.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

In a judgment handed down last week, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Blackburne (previously reported here) that the English courts have no jurisdiction to sanction the proposed scheme of arrangement for Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) insofar as it purports to extinguish rights of beneficiaries under trusts.

Some of the customers of Farepak, the failed Christmas hamper company that went into liquidation with BDO Stoy Hayward some three years ago, will apparently soon receive their first dividend cheques out of the insolvency. Perhaps even in time for Christmas 2009!

The administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) have been intending to propose a scheme of arrangement under the English Companies Act to enable them to distribute several billions of dollars of assets held on trust by the company in the face of difficulties in establishing who was entitled to the trust assets; in particular, they had not received responses from all potentially interested clients, could not rely on the accuracy of the company's records and had not received all the information requested from sub-custodians and other intermediaries.

Pensions and insolvency legislation uses the test in the Insolvency Act 1986 for assessing whether a person is ‘connected’ or ‘associated’ with another. This test is important because various statutory provisions use it, especially in limiting the persons whom the Pensions Regulator can make responsible for pension scheme deficits under the ‘moral hazard’ powers in the Pensions Act 2004. This briefing gives an outline of the statutory provisions and points to some difficult areas.  

Why is this relevant?  

A “life settlement” is the sale of a life insurance policy to a third party for a value in excess of the policy’s cash surrender value, but less than its death benefit. The life settlement industry focuses on the purchase and sale of life settlements or fractional interests in life settlements to investors. These investors may be anyone from individuals to groups of investors, hedge funds or other institutional investors.

For those who may be considering an investment in life settlements (see my previous blog for background), recent bankruptcy filings of life settlement entities have raised a concern not often considered when determining whether or not to invest: what would happen if the entity that owns or manages the underlying insurance policy(s) ends up in bankruptcy. Life settlement companies typically include provisions in their purchase agreements that downplay the potential ramifications of a bankruptcy filing.

Remember Sabena, the ill-fated Belgian airline that declared bankruptcy in 2001? Well, to quote Ford Madox Ford, this is the saddest story I have ever heard.

A recent decision out of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court highlights a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code which may allow Chapter 7 debtors to keep significant assets out of the hands of trustees and creditors.